Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant B’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order, 120 hours of community service order as seen above, Defendant C’s imprisonment, 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, and 80 hours of community service order) of the lower court is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the unjust assertion of sentencing by Defendant B and the Prosecutor’s unjust assertion of sentencing against Defendant B, Defendant B’s crime of this case is deemed bad in light of the method and circumstances of the crime, and the amount of fraud is a large amount, and the degree of participation in Defendant B’s crime is disadvantageous.

However, the fact that Defendant B recognized his criminal act and reflects the mistake, that Defendant B deposited KRW 15 million at the court below for the victim, that Defendant B made partial efforts to recover damage, such as additionally depositing KRW 6 million at the court below, and that Defendant B did not have any record of the same criminal act, may be considered under favorable circumstances. In addition, taking into account the various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant B’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the criminal act, the circumstances after the criminal act, etc., the court below’s punishment against Defendant B is somewhat weak.

It can not be seen, but rather be recognized as improper because it is somewhat unreasonable.

B. As to the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing against Defendant A and C, the sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretion is determined within reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness that our criminal litigation law takes, and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first deliberation is conducted by considering the following factors: (a) the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first deliberation of sentencing and the sentencing criteria.